Campaigns Wikia:Active Voters Policy/Approval Vote
This debate has been archived. To preserve the discussion, please do not edit it. Any comments should be posted to the The result of this Approval Vote was Disapprove by a vote of 2'' support to '3''' against, with 0'' abstention. '''A new approval vote will take place at 2 August 2007, remember to visit this page then'. Poll :We're still testing the poll function. If there are problems with the vote, we will use the Confirmation below as "voter verified balloting". This vote will determine whether will become official policy for Campaigns Wikia. Before voting on this policy, you may want to read its Talk page. Active Voters Policy approval Approve Disapprove Abstain Vote ends November 25th. You may change your vote until the end of the vote count. Confirmation of vote (2/3/0) :Please vote here as well. Votes should be in the following form: :: ::It doesn't make sense to vote on whether we need to vote on who can vote! If you want this to be a policy, you need to propose the qualifications, preferably as an amendment to Campaigns Wikia:Qualifications to vote, so that they can be voted-upon. You can't propose policies that leave such vital aspects up to future votes, especially without a coherent procedure and timetable for those votes. --whosawhatsis? 04:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC) ::: Maybe an amendment to Campaigns Wikia:Qualifications to vote is another way to define accurately the electorate. But by no means the electorate shall remain undefined. It is very important to define the electorate because then we can define a minimum number of voters, as a percentage of the electorate, that have to participate to a policy vote in order for the policy to be accepted. There is always the danger for a malicious policy to pass having just one or two approval votes. Without a minimum of participation defined, the vast majority of the electorate is forced to watch regulary all voting proposals, no matter how stupid they are, and this is very annoying. IMHO it is important to listen and count the abstain vote of the people who are doing other jobs into this site, and who do not seem to like watching or voting policy proposals or creating policies. Iasson 21:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC) ::::Campaigns Wikia:Qualifications to vote does define an electorate, but it is one that is far too broad to expect any percentage of them to be aware of their eligibility to vote, much less participate in each one. Before we can consider a requirement of a minimum number of votes, we need a set of criteria for the electorate that is appropriately narrow and is reasonable both in its requirements and in its maintainability (bearing in mind that it must be maintained by volunteers). No such criteria have been proposed. ::::Policy proposals are debated and refined over the course of one month, and the vote runs for an additional two weeks. If an individual does not see it in that period of time, they are either ignoring policy proposals or have not visited the site for an extended period of time. In either case, such users can be considered not to be part of the electorate. Those who do see the proposal at some point during that period, but do not care enough one way or the other to cast a vote if the vote has already begun or to return when the proposal is scheduled to be voted upon can be assumed to abstain. In this way, 100% of the electorate can be considered to have had their votes counted. --whosawhatsis? 01:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC) ::::: I agree with you that people who have not visited the site for an extended period do not belong to the electorate but I do think that they belong to the electorate thoses who are ignoring policy proposals, for the simple reason that not all policy proposals may be worth while. Ηere it is an unofficial poll asking what the electorate thinks this period of absense should be. My amendment into Campaigns Wikia:Qualifications to vote, asking for a maximum absence time to be added as voting qualification, will be based on the result of this poll. Iasson 09:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC) ] :: My proposal does not require that people come to vote regularly. It is exactly the opposite I am trying to achieve. Having the time of allowed absence extended enough, we do not require for people to come and watch policy proposals regularly, as long as they do not fear for a malicious policy to pass in a vacation period, having just one or two (or a few compared to the active electorate) votes counted. Iasson 09:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC) :::I understand that, but my other concern with defining the electorate is who should be responsible for keeping track of which users "qualify" to vote at any given time? That's a level of beaureaucracy that we don't have the resources to provide in a volunteer agency. And we just had a policy amendment pass with a single vote during a major election and holiday period. It's going to happen. Chadlupkes 16:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC) Iasson's_unofficial_poll Period of absence, after which someone should be expelled from the electorate, and should not be counted into the voting participation percentage. (It is assumed that the person who is expelled from the electorate is integrated immediatly into the electorate when s/he returns back). 1 week absence 3 weeks 1 month 1 month and a half 2 months 4 months 6 months 8 months 12 months The time the first user subscribed into this site. Never, I dont like to calculate the voting participation, and I think one or two votes are enough for a policy to be approved, no matter how many we are.